Pulled Post About Donald Miller

For a few hours I had a post up called “Donald Miller is an Idiot” a response to his recent blog post entitled “Should the Church Be Led by Teachers and Scholars?” After some thoughtful reconsideration, I’ve decided that the post was too strongly worded. I take issue with Miller’s understanding of what a “scholar” and a “teacher” is. Quite frankly, I just don’t think that he could be more incorrect in his analysis of the church in this post.

But, I want to get to a broader point. There seems to be a dichotomy that is being promulgated by many: Christian Thought vs. Christian Experience. This dichotomy is absolutely false.

The reality is that Christian Thought does not preclude Christian Experience; nor does Christian Experience trump Christian Through. Rather, the two work hand-in-hand. At the beginning of Book 4 of Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis does an excellent job of explaining the usefulness of theology. This is how he chooses to introduces a series of chapters on the Trinity. He admits that it is always better to experience God rather than just read about him, just as it is always better to be at the beach than to look at a picture of one. However, sometimes we need to be reminded of what the beach is, and that’s why it’s good to have a painting or two.

In my experience, I have seen Christians climb to the mountaintop and fall deep into the valley. When we are in the valley, we tend to despair, and we even come to a point where we deny what we previously knew to be true. If we fail to understand and learn who God is and who we are in relation to him, then the climb up out of the valley becomes nearly impossible because there is nothing to stop us from denying him altogether.

There is a great need for scholars in Christian churches. There is a great need for teachers in Christian churches. There is a great need for teaching and learning and discussion in Christian churches.

Finally, I’d like to challenge Donald Miller a bit. What does he hope to do when he writes books and speaks at conferences? Is he not teaching? A picture from his website (seen below) looks conspicuously like the sort of thing he condemns in his blog post. A word to all those teachers out there: James 3.1.

It did not appear to me that Miller was condemning teaching in his blog post. My understanding is that he is questioning the majority of churches being LED by scholars and teachers.

My opinion: There absolutely is a need for solid teaching but when the body of Christ, in the meeting place of a church, begins to look more like a school and less like a vessel of God’s love and care in the community, then something is out of balance. Church becomes a place we try to invite others to instead of a living presence meeting people where they are at. Why would anyone come into a building to LEARN more about Jesus when they have never seen him in action before?

@JennLH — You’re right, and that’s one of the reasons that I decided to pull my original post. However, I think Miller is completely wrong about the idea that church’s are being led by scholars, but I think my definition of “scholar” is very different from Donald Miller. He seems to define scholar as someone who reads a few books and tries to teach someone something. I wouldn’t call that scholarship.

Beyond that, his understanding of the Reformation and denominationalism is totally flawed and ignores any sort of historical nuance (or just history, in general). The divisions between denominations are not purely academic, and the rise of denominationalism in the United States has come about largely due to the lack of theological education.

re “history in general”: Yeah, he doesn’t seem to understand that the contemporary school system is a creation of the Roman church, for instance. So, to use his framing, schools are essentially churches.

Is it possible to set aside his shallow picture of an academic and see a broader point? (That’s not a rhetorical question- possibly there is no point if the picture isn’t shallow.) I liked this part, though: “My guess is they would have talked the command into a tailspin, dissected it into a million pieces, then divided themselves into different intellectual camps, and built a bunch of schools to teach their various interpretations.”

Is that necessarily true? No. But… if there were an island that contained only Christians of a particular sort of academic leaning? It could be a Lord of the Flies situation, only with books instead of flies. Churches don’t look like that because other members of the congregation provide the needed balance (which can’t be reduced to just “non-academic”). Denominations, though? If leadership at a denominational level is only provided by people who have theology degrees, then the Spirit-led perspective of someone who is gifted to build houses for Jesus is lacking- and our denominations build too few houses as a result.

“Academic leaning” does not equal “educator,” though, and neither of those equal “teacher.” It seems to me that’s where some of the frustration with Miller’s post is at. Does that seem accurate to you at all?

@Stephen — First time read here, and I could not agree with you more. Honestly, I briefly skimmed the post by Donald Miller, but what he said at the end in what appears to be an addition to the post is the bone I’d like to pick with him. He said: ” Let me ask you this: Aren’t you a little tired of scholars and psudo-scholars fighting about doctrine? Is it worth it that you are divided against other denominations because scholars picked up their ball and stomped off the playground?”

Like you said above, this is not merely scholars and pseudo-scholars fighting about doctrine which leads to an endless, and somewhat tireless, list of denominations. His approach to this subject is tragically biased. Yes, scholars argue about doctrine but that is because there is an abundance of unsound doctrine out there. Miller seems to forget that there are foundational beliefs to Christianity that must be addressed, and many of the times this leads to denominational difference. However, if that foundational doctrine is accepted even though it is clearly contrary to orthodoxy (not according to the traditions of man but according to Christ), then where is the dividing line for what is truth and what is not? It seems like Miller would be happy with the blurring of the lines. Miller, quite honestly, should be kissing the feet of those “scholars and pseudo-scholars” because they were a big push for his book sales. Haha.

My concern with scholars and pseudo-scholars behind the pulpit is that they leave their post for academia. For example, Briand McLaren started out as a Pastor with some pretty good ideas about Christianity. Fast forward to today and he is no longer a Pastor, left his congregation to pursue writing, teaching, and traveling across the country lecturing; you could even add to the fact that he has gone off the deep end in his theology (which is my take, but thank God for the scholars whom Miller disagrees with for taking up the cause to show truth amidst crap). Or take NT Wright as another example. I’m a fan of Wright so I will speak highly of him, but he left his position as the Bishop of Durham to become a lecturer at St. Andrews. Why couldn’t he have done both? I will not understand that.

Miller’s post is not well thought out, not well presented, and stinks of a desire for the spotlight from “postmodern” “hipster” Christians that attract to counter-Christian movement like flys on you know what. Miller needs to re-evaluate his position because if it were not for scholars behind the pulpit, God knows where Christianity would be at today.